Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lumberyard Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews lumberyard budget as Phase 0 cost estimate triples
Summary
City staff told the Aspen City Council that Phase 0 infrastructure costs for the lumberyard housing project have climbed from an earlier $14.25 million estimate to about $45 million; staff said added scope (CDOT requirements, sound walls, an underpass) and construction inflation explain the increase and that options for phasing or engaging a development partner will return in December.
Rob Schobert, the city's capital asset director, told the council the housing development fund’s five‑year outlook now includes a substantial increase for the lumberyard infrastructure work. "Our 2025 request is $20,000,000," Schobert said, and he confirmed that the Phase 0 estimate previously shown at about $14.25 million is now reflected at roughly $45,000,000.
Schobert attributed the rise to added scope since the 2022 schematic‑design estimate and to construction cost escalation. He listed several elements added to the project during land‑use review and coordination with CDOT — including sound walls, lengthened deceleration lanes and a grade‑separated underpass for the trail — and said those features account for a large share of the increase. He said the city expects to competitively solicit the work and that a demo/abatement contract is being finalized for council review in the coming weeks.
At least one councilor pressed for a clearer breakdown of the $45 million, noting that roughly half the increase appears to be added scope. "How much of that is in added scope and why do we add scope to it?" the councilor asked. Schobert agreed to return with a timeline and a list of when specific scope items were added. He also said the RFQ for a vertical development partner had closed with 15 respondents and staff hopes to bring a first pass of developer recommendations by late December.
Council members debated whether the city should pause and allow a private development partner to take on more of the Phase 0 work. One councilor summarized the concern bluntly: "We're we're just not good at this. It it's we've proven it over and over again. We I mean, we're 3 x what we thought our budget was gonna be on this," and urged finding a partner with proven experience to avoid repeating cost overruns. Staff described multiple phasing and partnership options and said they will return with recommendations that lay out how phasing choices and developer proposals could change the city’s cash needs.
The presentation also flagged financing for the project in out years: staff penciled in an $80 million expenditure in 2026, an $85 million line in 2027 and a $70 million debt issuance in 2027 in the long‑range plan. Schobert said these figures reflect the programmatic view today and that more granular cost and financing options will be presented as the RFQ/RFP process proceeds.
